The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-29

NIT to the court The first is proceeding to
disbar under the statute. The statute says
that 1t may be had Tin any court OF record
And yet, when the subject came to be reviewed
by this court it WAS held that these words must
be construed with reference to the other statutes
comforting jurisdiction, and that the Criminal
Court, though court of record, unQuest'on-
ably, did not have jurisdiction of this special
proceeding.
The next special proceeding in which such a
question arose was under the drainage act.
special proceeding in very strict sense. And
in that case the statute provided that the action
should be brought sin any coart of competent
jurisdiction" Are MT those words wider than
the terms ''in the Circuit Court of the proper
county, Do not the last terms contain within
themselves the suggestion of reference
to some other statute fixing the venue
of actions? But here it was said: MAY
tent jurisdiction" and vet his Honor. Judge
collars, constituting those words, held that the
action must be brought with reference to the
general provisions as to venue IN actions reiat-
ing to real property.
Again, there is no special provision in the ar
ticle entitled mandate to venue; and we
have case in which this argument drawn from
a supposed convenience, was disposed OF by this
court If the argument OF convenience. which
Judge Turpie SO much pressed, has any force.
has 1t not equal If cot greater, force In the case
of mandate, where the act--the official act
which the party declines to do, must be done Ia
d
control where official act has been done that
amounts TO intrusion into an office, and the
court is asked to restrain it; but, In case or the
refusal 10 do particular official act, which must
be done in given locality, would not the argu-
ment De stronger that, as the act was to be done
in a particular county, the action would lie In
the courts of that county, And yet. II your
Honors please. we have a case in which. not
outstanding this argument OF convenience, this
court has RENTED the party to the courts
of the county where the defendant resided.
The case of The State vs. The Whitewater
Canal Company, in Sth Indiana, is the case
refer to. 1t was mandate to compel the re-
building of bridge in Dearborn county. The
refusal to discharge the official duty was there.
And yet this court held, Notwithstanding it
might be convenient that the courts of Dearborn
county should supervise the execution of this
corporate duty that the action must be brought
in the county where the corporation had its Of
flee. The court say:
1t assumed that this action is local in its nature
anc must be brought in the county where the duty
sought to be enforce is to be performed
Precisely as the gentlemen say here it must be
brought in the county where the intrusion into
the Office has occurred, and yet the court said
the code points out and defines the subject-mat.
ter of the actions which must be instituted in
the county in which the subject of the action or
some part thereof is situated, but the at bar
is not within the definition, and. therefore, 1t
was held that there was no jurisdiction in Dear
born county.
Let US take the action of replevin, another
special proceeding. In the case of Hodson vs.
Warner, in Goth indiana, Judge Worden, speak.
| ing for the court, says:
It is claimed that action of repevn is local and
must be brought in the county where the property is
detained and that unless the complaint shows the de
tenton have been in the county where the action is
brought, the court will have jurisdiction of the
| subject thereof.
| Here, again, tho argument of convenience
| might be made. The property is here detained
|
| nation of the case is here. But the court say:
Authorities cited to show that, at common law
| the action of replevin was local.
| Just the suggestion we had from the learned
| gentleman this morning.
But this is matter which is regulated by stat
| ute The statute provides
| And this statute referred to is the genera
| statute on the subject of venue-not any specia
| statute in this special proceeding
The statute provides that certain actions shall b
| brought in the county where the subject thereof il
situate, where the thereof arose; but the
ton of replevn is not mentioned, thus localized.
| Then it is provided in Section 80 that Sin al
other cases the action shall be commenced in ths
county where the defendants. or one of them
has his usual place of residence"
| So it was then held, Notwithstanding the refer
| ence to the common-law rule as to venue in re
! plevin, Notwithstanding the suggestion as to tn,
convenience in such case that, replevin. specia
proceeding as it is. is governed by the genera
So again with proceedings in bastardy, in tn
case of Haley vs.. The State, Goth Indiana. Sec
fion 968 provides that such q proceeding may b.
commenced before ''any justice Of the peace
| without any limitation as to the county or town
ship in which it is brought Yet it is hold il
this case. Judge Niblack delivering the opinion
Such proceedings being transitory in their characte
un der the code must be commenced in tho county i
which the defendant resides when he is resident O
the State
The argument of convenience might we'll b
used here. 1t may be that the mother reside
here. 1t may be that the putative father ma
not be found if there is any delay. All of thes
suggestions as to convenience apply strongly
But the court has not left the venue of thes
actions to the whim of the judge, but notwitf
standing the inconvenience that may attach ha
| settled upon general principals regulating then
Attachment and garnshmeut might refer I
as other special proceedings, although they ma
be said to be 1t some sense apcillary to anothe
action and venue may be determined by tina
fact; and yet in such cases the court say the ger
| eral rule In relation to personal actions is d.
clared by Sec. 312 of the Code. In this sectio
as amended it is provided:
In all other cases the action shall be commenced
the county where the defendant or one of them b;
} his usual place of residence.
It was held that the Wabash Circuit Court ha
no jurisdiction OF proceeding in garnishmen
Now, il your Honors please, wan. to call a.
tenton to the of the State vs.. The Board
49th Indiana. This was a case where statu,
was passed providing that certain action to
brought by the Auditor of State for the failul
to properly assess or collect certain taxes migi
be brought as the statute said, ''in any court
this State" A State officer was to be the plain
if or relator, and the statute said he may brir
the action lin any court of this State" Ar
yet this court. constituting those terms, app
those general principles as to venue of which
! have been speaking They say it could not ha,
been intended by the Legislature that this ac,ie
brought by Wildman Auditor. against Il
. Commissioners of Vanderburg county, could
brought in Marion county. Again they go bat
and take hold of these general provisions of o,
code as to venue. and they diminish the force
the legislative expression as to bring it with
; the control of these general provisions. II
court say:
= By the sections of the statute above set ont T.
e action therein provided for may be brought in Al
| of RI